Thanks for the link. I wonder how many others have gone that route to improve stability.
So, you're in the process of moving or building your dream home? I hope to never move again. It might be a while before you can pursue your ideas, but, all 4 of them make sense.
Tom remade the mounting plate so it sits lower in the wedge. This is something I've been wanting to do. With the Super C8 it may take flipping the base to get it low enough. If I were to build a new wedge from a clean sheet of paper, I'd probably not have the wedge extend so far from the center of the tripod. I can see why Celestron (and later Meade) did this. The CG of the entire system ends up more or less centered over the tripod, but I'd rather sacrifice this a bit for a little more stability from a shorter lever-arm.
Again, I'll bet a C8 mounted on a solid permanent pier (angled - no wedge) would be far more vibration resistant. I've never had the opportunity to test this though.
Yes, Celestron and Meade needed to balance the mass above the tripod to prevent tipping while selling a product that could still be used in the greatest variety of latitude. In truth, I took inspiration from an earlier Celestron design that had a bottom brace arrangement like mine. I'm very pleased with the improved settle time that bottom brace provides and the system will still adjust to +/_ 15 degrees of my latitude (I'll never use this much). Not bad. I hear your argument about the wedge, but, I don't detect compliance there in my system (nor in the wedge plate, now ). I was shooting straight when I said most of the oscillation that remains appears to be in the fork arms. I'll probably look deeper into this after the OTA has been serviced. OTOH, I could stop here and simply enjoy acceptable damping times.
I never thought of flipping the base (so the controls are on the uphill side?). Interesting idea.
Edited by Tenacious, 18 October 2016 - 02:45 PM.